~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.908/2014 of Vattappara Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 20(b)(ii)A, 23(a) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
3. The son of the de facto complainant Anshar had come on leave from Kuwait. When he was about to depart on 28.10.2014, the relatives of other persons working in Kuwait had entrusted some food materials etc. to him for taking it to Kuwait. The petitioner brought a packet allegedly containing pickle to be taken to A2 in Kuwait. As the weight of the articles to be taken to Kuwait were more than the permissible quantity stipulated by the Airlines, some of the articles were left out and he proceeded to Kuwait. After that, when the de facto complainant opened the packet and examined it, a packet of ganja, which was covered in insulation tape, was found in the container containing pickle. The petitioner has been in custody for the period from 03.11.2014 onwards.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The facts are self speaking. Any further discussion is not required to conclude that the petitioner, who has exercised that much cheating, is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed an argument that the petitioner is only 19 years old and he was unaware of the contents of the container that was taken to the house of the de facto complainant. That does not weigh with this Court at present. According to the investigating officer, the investigation so far conducted has revealed that the petitioner was aware of the presence of ganja in pickle and that he had collected the same from A4 and A5. May be the petitioner had done the said act at the direction of the 2nd accused. The petitioner ought to have exercised at least commonsense in taking such materials to a person when he had to take it to an Arab country. Considering the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner and considering the plight of the other person, had it been taken to Kuwait, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
In the result, this Bail Application is dismissed.
Sd/-
(B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) aks/19/11 // True Copy // PA to Judge